It’s official
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3523884-supreme-court-strikes-down-roe-v-wade/
Here’s a current real example of what women in many states have to look forward to:
https://thehill.com/homenews/ap/ap-health/woman-who-had-miscarriage-in-malta-taken-to-spain-to-abort/
Have a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy in many states? You’ll likely need to travel to another state for medical care.
1 Like
I think when ectopic pregnancies are challenged, it’s going to shake out that treating it is necessary care, not only legal but mandated to be covered by Obamacare-compliant plans.
I have no doubt there will be some unfortunate trailblazers along the way though.
It really ought to be like that for miscarriages too, but I could see that one possibly being more difficult. But maybe not if there’s no heartbeat.
1 Like
Except that even the strictest states allow the procedure if there’s no heartbeat. So a typical miscarriage would be allowed, but I’m worried about those with ectopic pregnancies. Gonna have to read the law for my state to see if it warrants a strongly worded letter to my reps.
1 Like
Thomas issues a separate concurring opinion that the court needs to reevaluate decisions on contraception, same sex relationships, and same sex marriage.
We knew it was coming.
1 Like
republicans are gross
1 Like
Fuck.
Did those decisions rely at least in part on the right to privacy “discovered” in Roe?
If so, he’s probably technically correct, although hopefully they will be snoozefest cases where the court upholds the status quo on some other basis, such as equal protection.
I think it’s more like Roe depended on the right of privacy discovered in Griswold.
3 Likes
even the pussy grabbing trump lovers thought RvW was gonna be a snoozefest.
times have changed
2 Likes
The court that just pissed on the 5th amendment? Yeah good luck with that.
Under his eye.
4 Likes
This. It’s essentially a statement that the government has the right to intrude on your personal life in any way it chooses, but especially in the bedroom
3 Likes
His reasoning is that there are no implied rights in the constitution. As the founding fathers did not explicitly say the right to contraception shall not be infringed, there is no right.
3 Likes
Reminds me of my favourite quote from Pierre Trudeau when he was the Minister of Justice in 1967:
1 Like
This decision is the most consequential one made by SCOTUS in decades, but what a week they had overall. Roe, Miranda, gun control, and separation of church and state all dismantled in a single session.
2 Likes
Yeah there’s a whole amendment about not quartering soldiers. I’m guessing the founding fathers weren’t a big fan of government intruding the home.
1 Like
I am not sure what world you have been living in.
The court does not have enough votes to hold up the status quo.
Under this current court, most of the rights that you have taken for granted in your life are no longer guaranteed.
People are going to die due to these religious zealots.
You no longer have a right to privacy.
This is huge.
5 Likes
Oh and gutted government ability to regulate too.
This court sucks.
2 Likes
Maternal mortality rates are already poor in the US. Wonder how much worse this chart will look in a couple years.
ETA: sorry for the tiny image. You can see it better here if you want to:
1 Like
Thanks, I wasn’t very familiar with that decision other than it had to do with contraception. Will read up on it.